Open borders activists and immigration anarchists have, since the Carter administration, tried to blur the distinction between illegal aliens and lawful immigrants. These social justice warriors portray themselves as “immigrants’ rights” activists regardless of the legal status of foreigners.

As I’ve mentioned in previous Social Contract articles, President Carter issued an edict that all Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) employees stop referring to aliens illegally in the United States as “illegal aliens” per se, but refer to them as “undocumented immigrants.”

The motive for this terminology directive was not “political correctness,” but to achieve the Orwellian goal of creating a lexicon of “Immigration Newspeak” to obfuscate the truth and confound any effort to have an honest discussion.

The term “alien” is not a pejorative. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the term alien simply means, “Any person, not a citizen or national of the U.S.”

Open borders advocates eschew the term “alien” because it provides clarity to the issue of immigration. Con artists are masters of obfuscation. By using the term “undocumented immigrant” to describe illegal aliens, it becomes a simple matter for immigration anarchists to accuse advocates of effective immigration enforcement of being “anti-immigrant.”

Before we go any further, it is critically important to understand that there are three distinct ways that aliens may be subject to removal (deportation) from the U.S.

1. Aliens who gain entry into the U.S. illegally—either as stowaways on a ship or running our borders—are obviously subject to removal.
2. Aliens, who are lawfully admitted as non-immigrants (temporary visitors) become illegal aliens when they violate the terms of their admission. This includes remaining after their authorized period of admission, accepting unlawful employment, or, in the case of foreign students, failing to attend the schools where they were admitted to attend or otherwise failing to maintain their status as a student; and
3. Aliens who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence may live and work in the U.S. forever. However, such immigrants, upon conviction for serious crimes, may be subject to deportation (as may non-immigrants), even if they have not overstayed their authorized period of admission.

When aliens run our borders they do not, as the open borders advocates claim, “enter undocumented.” That term can only be found in the “Immigration Newspeak Lexicon.”

Aliens who run our borders and evade the inspections process enter the United States without inspection.

The mission of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a federal agency with more than 60,000 employees, is to conduct inspections of people and goods entering the U.S. to prevent the entry of contraband, including drugs and weapons of mass destruction, and to prevent the entry of aliens who would pose a threat to the safety and well-being of American citizens.

CBP also is charged with securing our borders against the entry of individuals and objects that circumvent the ports-of-entry inspections process. This is the specific mission of the U.S. Border Patrol. Last year the budget for CBP exceeded $14 billion.

Our immigration laws have nothing to do with race, religion, or ethnicity, but seek to prevent the entry of foreign nationals (aliens) whose presence would pose a threat to national security, public health, or public safety.

It is important to note that America’s legal immigration system is, by far, the most generous of any country.Every year the U.S. admits more lawful immigrants than all of the other countries combined— approximately one million aliens are lawfully admitted for permanent residence and tens of millions of nonimmigrant alien visitors are admitted for various lawful temporary purposes, including foreign tourists, students, and temporary workers.

Likewise, hundreds of thousands of lawful immigrants are annually granted U.S. citizenship via the naturalization process.

Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182, is a section of law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act that enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from entry, including: aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or extreme mental illness, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists, and spies.

Aliens who enter the U.S. without inspection may have evaded that critical vetting process at ports of entry because they have criminal histories and may be fugitives. They may know that their names are listed on counter-terrorism watch lists.

The bottom line is that we don’t know what we don’t know, and what we don’t know about illegal aliens can ultimately harm or, indeed, kill us [as contributor Dave Gibson documents on pages 35-38 —editors].

The 9/11 Commission found that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were directly attributable to multiple failures of the immigration system. The system afforded terrorists effortless entry into the country as they embedded themselves in communities to methodically pursue their deadly preparations. Furthermore, the Commission did not just consider the nineteen terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks, but some 94 terrorists who operated in the U.S. in the decade leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

America’s borders and immigration laws are our first line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals, and aliens who otherwise pose a threat to our safety, security, and overall well-being.

Nevertheless, a growing number of mayors and even some governors have declared their towns, cities, and states to be “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens. (Of course they use the term “undocumented immigrants.”)

Generally when contemplating a sanctuary we think of a refuge for endangered wildlife, essentially a place of serenity, security, and peace.

On July 2, 2015, Francisco Sanchez, an illegal alien, shot and killed Kate Steinle. Sanchez, a seven-time convicted felon, had been deported on five previous occasions.

According to published news reports, Sanchez admitted that San Francisco’s sanctuary policies figured in his decision to live in that city, where he would come to take the life of Kate Steinle.

Clearly she did not find safety or security in San Francisco, nor did her family.

Sanctuary cities attract illegal aliens, particularly those who may have outstanding arrest warrants, to head for those cities, to make it less likely that law enforcement officials will take note of their presence. This also makes such cities and states particularly attractive to terrorists, which makes them dangerous for residents and visitors alike.

Referring to towns and cities as places of “security,” when in reality such towns and cities endanger the lives and safety of their residents, is as Orwellian as it gets.

Now, a relatively new phenomenon is sweeping the country: “sanctuary campuses,” where illegal aliens are being shielded from deportation.

Before delving into the lunacy of “sanctuary campuses” (aka “freedom university” students), consider that the vast majority of college students seek a post-secondary education as preparation for productive and successful professional careers that coincide with their personal interests and goals.

Universities are also supposed to provide students with the intellectual tools they need to successfully navigate the challenges presented by everyday life. An effective education should train students to be critical thinkers—develop the ability to ask incisive questions and understand how to recognize false arguments.

The French philosopher Voltaire once noted, “Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.”

So-called “safe spaces” on college campuses are anything but “safe.” They are designed to shut down debate and discourse—vital elements of any democracy. The Founding Fathers deemed the notion of freedom of speech and the right for peaceable assemblage significant enough to form the basis of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

“Safe spaces” prohibit the asking of questions that might expose the truth about the ultimate totalitarian objectives of academia’s left-wing extremists.

College students are malleable. Most are eager to become involved in a “cause,” to have their voices heard about issues of consequence. However, many are naive and easily swayed by professors and college administrators, who are eager to harness their enthusiasm by creating appealing but thoroughly false narratives that fire up these young students. Therein lies the danger to America and its future.

Furthermore, the lunacy of “safe spaces” and other warped perspectives of professors and college administrators merely inhibit, not advance, the ability of these students to succeed in the “real world,” once they graduate and find themselves facing fierce competition, often from foreign workers who bring Third World expectations of wages and working conditions to the labor pool.

Additionally, schools are expected to provide a safe environment for their students and faculty members.

Ironically, many colleges have promulgated policies that prohibit firearms from being stored or carried on campuses out of safety concerns. But in doing so, some colleges have enthusiastically implemented sanctuaries for potential criminal aliens and terrorists—harboring and shielding from detection illegal aliens whose backgrounds, affiliations, and intentions are unknown and unknowable.

It is easy to attribute this wrong-headed approach to immigration to the naivety of campus administrators and professors. However, Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California and former Secretary of Homeland Security, must certainly be aware of this threat. Yet she is willing to harbor aliens on UC college campuses, who may well be criminals or even terrorists, to push her own globalistic agenda.

Napolitano opposes the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that prohibit the employment of illegal aliens.

According to the “The College Fix” website,

Napolitano … put out a statement … that her office will “vigorously protect the privacy and civil rights of the undocumented members of the UC community and will direct its police departments not to undertake joint efforts with any government agencies to enforce federal immigration law.”

The announcement comes as students in the country illegally and their peer allies are distraught that there might be mass deportations of undocumented students under a Donald Trump presidency. Many student leaders have announced their schools are “sanctuary campuses.” Now campus leaders are essentially following suit.

According to Napolitano’s office, there are about 2,500 undocumented students enrolled across the 10-campus UC system.

Napolitano’s statement in the article cited above about the “…deeply held conviction that all members of our community (including ‘undocumented immigrants’) have the right to work, study, and live safely and without fear at all UC locations,” calls into question her sincerity when she took the oath of office as Secretary of Homeland Security.

The article also noted,

[T]he University of California also issued its “Statement of Principles in Support of Undocumented Members of the UC Community,” outlining measures they will take to protect DACA students:

The University will continue to admit students consistent with its nondiscrimination policies so that undocumented students will be considered for admission under the same criteria as U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

The fact that Napolitano equates immigration laws with discrimination is beyond outrage. Consider this quote:

The University will not cooperate with any federal effort to create a registry of individuals based on any protected characteristics such as religion, national origin, race, or sexual orientation.

UC medical centers will treat all patients without regard to race, religion, national origin, citizenship, or other protected characteristics and will vigorously enforce nondiscrimination and privacy laws and policies.

ABC News reported on September 2, 2014, that 58,000 foreign students overstayed their visas in 2015 and that the DHS has lost track of more than 6,000 foreign students who have gone missing in the U.S.

Finally, the report noted that former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) stated that since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, 26 aliens who had been admitted with student visas have been arrested on terror-related charges.

An article in the November 22, 2016 issue of Atlantic, “The Push for Sanctuary Campuses Prompts More Questions Than Answers,” detailed how some colleges have declared their campuses “sanctuaries” for “undocumented students” and will not cooperate with immigration authorities.

There is, however, a very simple way to apply serious pressure to end the lunacy of “sanctuary campuses.”

On December 8, 2016, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) website posted a news release, “ICE publishes quarterly international student data: F, M students up 2.9 percent; F, M STEM students up 10.1 percent from November 2015.” The report notes that there are nearly 514,000 foreign students studying STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) courses. Overall foreign students attendance at U.S. colleges and universities has increased over the previous year.

The report also notes that there are 1.23 million foreign students with F and M visas enrolled in 8,697 schools.

Any school that declares itself to be a “sanctuary” for illegal aliens should have its authority to issue the form I-20 to foreign students summarily revoked. Period. End of discussion! Foreign students must present that form (I-20) to the U.S. embassy or consulate in order to be issued a student visa.

Foreign student advisors at schools that have foreign students are responsible for notifying DHS about students who fail to attend those schools for which they were granted visas. Clearly “sanctuary schools” cannot be trusted to make proper notification to the DHS.

This simple measure would disqualify “sanctuary” schools and colleges from enrolling foreign students and would prevent such students from entering the U.S. in the first place.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Social Contract Press website.